Going Stealth
I linked to some information at Lynn Conway’s page in a recent comment and wanted to take a moment to talk about her site. She’s in the EE/CS department at University of Michigan and has gathered a lot of information in an effort to “illuminate and normalize the issues of gender identity and the processes of gender transition.” I have no doubts about her good intentions, and she has succeeded in compiling a very useful resource that comes up on Google when searching for a number of trans-related topics.
But… (and you knew there had to be a ‘but’ coming…)
Before I launch into my main thoughts, I need to get a nitpicky issue off my chest: She uses a lot of quotes, many more than I think are needed, and it bothers me. For example, here she says, “…a number of leading companies have established policies and guidelines that protect and support “on-the-job” (OTJ) or transitions.” Fine. Great. You don’t need to have quotes around on-the-job. (Or most of the many other phrases and concepts she quotes.) Likewise, I don’t like that she uses the word tranny and I’m very unconvinced by her comparison that “the infrastructure that supports TS transitions is very analogous to the “Underground Railroad” in the U.S. which helped African-American slaves escape from the South.”
Now that we have those nitpicky items out of the way, lets talk about the content of her site. As I said, her site has a lot of useful information. Some things I’ve found useful or interesting:
- Cost of transitioning
- Historical and cross-cultural examples of non-binary gender expression
- Pictures, history, and details of SRS (note – the page I’m linking to is a warning page explaining that many of the pictures are rather graphic)
- Theories on the cause(s) of being trans
Suffice it to say that I’m impressed with her collected resources.
So what’s my beef with her site? Much of it comes from her page on Life After Transition, most of which is her own writing and expressing her own opinions, rather than collecting information gathered from elsewhere. To begin with, she uses the term transsexual transition (basically meaning having surgery) in contrast to transgender transition (hormones) and places surgery as the end-all be-all of being done with transitioning. I don’t agree that it’s fair for anyone to decide for someone else how much they have transitioned, or when they’re “done,” as those are both extremely subjective experiences. Yes, surgery is an easy milestone to identify and it’s simple to see why popular culture has linked that with the concept of having “finished” transitioning, but I’d say transitioning is as much mental as physical. Certainly the outward signs of living full time, hormones, surgery, etc, are more easily identifiable, but that doesn’t make them the only component of the transition.
More importantly, Lynn sets up a false dichotomy between staying out as trans post-transition and going stealth:
At this point transitioners tend to separate into two major groups: Those who will stay visibly present in society as “postop transsexuals”, and those who will move on much futher towards social assimilation as women.
The “transsexuals” will build their postop lives from within the social environments they encountered during transition. Most of their friends will be other transitioners, preop and postop. They may spend lots of time maintaining contact with the transitioners’ e-mail groups and bulletin boards on the net. Many of them will become activists. Many will remain in support groups as “mentors” for other transitioners, and this will tend to reinforce the visibility of their chosen path, since most transitioners never meet assimilated postop women – instead only meeting postop “mentors” who chose to stay “inside the community”.
This either/or choice dismisses my life experience of someone who is keeping their pre-transition social environment successfully, while interacting and engaging with the trans community, while attempting to “move on…towards social assimilation as [a woman.]” I realize that I’m in a minority within the trans community in terms of the amount and type of support I’ve receive from friends and family, but I really think it’s possible to have my cake and eat it to. As one of my coworkers said recently, when confronted with a document that had my legal [male] name, “Oh, that’s weird. I don’t even think of you as [male name] any more.” I don’t think I need to live in stealth mode to have normal social interaction with other women, assuming I’m not chosing to surround myself with bigots.
If that false dichotomy weren’t enough, she creates the implicit assumption that such stealth passing is more advanced, with very loaded phrases to describe the (fales) decision to assimilate or not. Here’s a selection:
- “…move on…”
- “…get on with their new lives as women…”
- “Those who do best are the women who DO NOT LET UP IN EFFORTS TO MOVE FORWARD [sic]…”
Lynn continues, claiming those who are less certain of the high status she has placed on living in stealth thusly:
- All these mixed feelings have led to a kind of rebellion in some quarters against the idea of working hard to pass, and especially against having surgeries such as FFS in order to pass well. Some women think that it’s better to relax and just “not pass” and not worry about it. Some activists even take pride in looking like “trannies” and being in people’s faces about it. Others just can’t take the daily hassles of “not passing”. They reject the notion of “not caring” and do whatever they can to finally pass comfortably, including undergoing extremely painful and costly facial reconstructions to feminize their faces.
I wouldn’t say she’s completely wrong in that paragraph but, again, she’s creating a false contrast between those crazy activists who don’t care how they look and the poor, put-upon trans women who simply want to look good without acknowledging that both sides have valid points to make. (And that isn’t to say I don’t try to pass, or enjoy when I do pass. But I respect the political decision of those who inhabit a more gender-queer space without calling it sour grapes by trans women who supposedly wouldn’t be able to pass.)
I guess what it boils down to is I think she’s a pesemist about the choice to live as a man or a woman while still acknowledging one’s status as trans. From discussing the issue of stealth, Lynn says the following:
Continuity of employment during transition and being able to continue past personal relationships can provide wonderful support for TS women who are open during their transitions and in the early years afterwards. However, this advantage often comes at the cost of being treated as “trannies” instead of as women. Their strong connections with the past often marginalize them in their new gender and keep such women from fully assimilating.
Again, I realize she’s saying “often,” not “always,” but this is very much not the experience I’ve had at work, and I think expecting the worst from people can often result in them meeting your expectations.
I don’t fault Lynn for acknowledging that there are a lot of bigots out there, and that transitioning is a tremendously hard process, often made worse than it needs to be by the assholes of the world. But I guess my experiences have given me cause for optimism about transitioning, and about the people around me. And I think Lynn sets up a lot of situations where she doesn’t give credit to people who remain out, and doesn’t acknowledge that doing so can be a personal or political choice and not simply an inability to pass.
Thoughts?
-R
PS – Phew! This post became a lot longer than I originally intended, and may have become disjointed as a result. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments, or anything is unclear. Thanks!
Themocracy
I’ve read Lynn Conway’s site myself before and I really agree with your points wholeheartedly.
Yes she does have some very good support ideas and links, yes there are some good and thoughtful pieces of writing there, but… exactly the things you pull out as difficult are where I have trouble. I don’t personally desire srs, it’s not my goal, I completely understand and support that for some trans women it is, but it is not part of my transition. For me transition has been/is more about growing into myself as a woman living my life, exactly what you mean by saying “transitioning is as much mental as physical”.
I too have kept as friends and had support from most of the people around me during this and I agree that people can be perfectly capable of journeying with you and accepting you for who you are if they are willing to try.
I also find it problematic how she divides “passing” and activism. I don’t see the two as mutually exclusive. Nor do I think that one has to be out all the time in all situations to promote trans rights or be proud. Nor do all trans women who don’t pass automatically become activists as a way to cope.
I’m also very uncomfy about how she writes about attractiveness and physical appearance. It feels very judgemental, stating what a woman should look like, and has no sense of the fact that cis women also have huge degrees of physical variation including the “gender-identification problem” causing characteristics. She goes on to say that any trans woman who does have something from her list has “Perhaps [...] never looked in the mirror in profile” if they choose not to do anything about it (assuming they could afford to if they did wish to).
It’s all very black and white but isn’t life much more about shades of grey than this?
My biggest personal issue with her site is the way she talks about “TS and TG women” as if trans women who do not wish srs are not the same, as if there is one true path of transsexuality and if you deviate it you are not a “true transsexual”. I find this, unhelpful for wider public understanding as well as divisive and excluding. Transsexual refers to how we are, not how we choose to deal with it and live our lives in the transition choices we make.
Thanks for the comment, Mattie. It sounds like we’re pretty much on the same page. Among other things, it frustrates me that Lynn seems to assume that everyone’s transition decisions are based purely on their own choices and desires (and how ready/willing they are to “assimilate”) and never on financial (st)ability or political beliefs.
That said, I do wonder whether or not there might be any theoretical value in differentiating between those who desire to undergo some sort of genital surgery (or body modification) and those who do not. I think we can both agree that “trans” and/or “transgender” serves a useful place as a label for those who do not identify as their assigned gender. But should their also be a term for those who specifically desire to modify their body to cross the gender binary? (Whether or not said binary “really” exists is, I think, irrelevant to the question itself – it’s culturally acknowledged to exist to some extent, and so people can and do transition ‘across’ it.) I don’t know.
Thinking out loud, someone can be bisexual even when in a relationship which appears heterosexual. Likewise, someone can identify as trans* without ever actually acting on that identity. But, I guess, creating a term to specifically identify those who want/undergo genital surgery seems to fit within the same reductionist thinking of “Gender = Genitals” that presents trans men and women with so much trouble in the first place.
Any thoughts?
-R
It’s an interesting subject isn’t it?
Reductionism is absolutely the trouble with it for me. I feel that defining types of trans people around types of surgery is kind of ignoring what the actual issue is, that of gender identity. It’s essentialist and it starts to set up hierarchies and ideas of who is a “proper” transsexual, who is less than and therefore open to accusations of “lifestyling”. Foe me it diverts from what we have in common to focus on differences in how we deal with.
Myself I think in terms of transition, I think about social transition and physical transition as aspects of transition as a whole and consider that we all select various elements of both that we need, can accomodate in our lives or feel we want in order to be whole people. To me this still allows one to talk about differences in how we cope but avoids making generalisations that exclude some trans women with labels they might not be comfy with based on bodies. Does that make sense?
Interesting that in a site all about trans women and surgery, it is totally heteronormative. Just browsed the site about vagioplasty, and there is a section about “losing your virginity” post-surgery, and it is all about finding the right guy and how guys don’t even notice. Um, what about trans women who are lesbians? Or bi or whatever? Oy. Eh. All right, off to examine the other links.
Ok never mind I guess, there is a small mention at the bottom about post-op women being with women. Still, though, as always lesbianism is an afterthought. Le sigh.
You also have to remember peeps, that Lynn grew up in the more sexually repressive 40′s and 50′s.
As one of those activists who also happens to be African descended as well, she couldn’t be more wrong about the need for activist. People in a marginalized group NEVER have the luxury of opting out of the political process.
Welcome, Monica! I do agree that it’s worth remembering the perspective from which Lynn is writing. I was recently on a panel discussion following an excellent production of Hedwig (if you’re in Chicago you should check out the show) and I said something about how the gender politics of the show seemed somewhat dated to me. One of the cast members said, basically, “Yes, but it’s going to seem really radical to the older, primarily straight audience that we’re able to reach.” I’d imagine the same is true of many who come across Lynn’s page for the first time, looking for information.
But while we can keep that in mind while viewing her writings, I don’t think that should entitle her to a free pass for putting out very heteronormative material and labeling it as encompassing “The Trans Experience,” as if such a thing could exist in the first place. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, Monica, as I don’t think you were saying we should give her a free pass, I just want to make my position clear. (And, as someone who is white, I didn’t even think about her assumption that she’s writing for a white audience.)
-R